Digital Doors v. Bank of America: Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
Digital Doors, Inc. asserted US9015301B2 — covering information infrastructure management, secure storage, and content classification tools — against Bank of America Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 318 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Stipulated exit: Digital Doors and Bank of America end patent dispute
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against Bank of America Corp. on November 21, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00542), asserting infringement of US9015301B2. The patent covers information infrastructure management tools encompassing data extraction, secure storage, content analysis, and classification. The complaint was part of what the court designates a ‘Member Case’, suggesting coordinated proceedings with related actions, consistent with plaintiff-side portfolio assertion strategies common in E.D. Texas.
The case closed on October 4, 2024 — 318 days after filing — when both parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Digital Doors is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Bank of America based on US9015301B2.
A resolution at 318 days — before typical claim construction or summary judgment milestones — suggests the parties reached commercial terms relatively early in litigation. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm financial terms. The absence of a fee award to either side suggests neither party sought nor obtained an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. What drove the resolution — licensing agreement, cross-licensing, or pure settlement — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 318 days
318 days — below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration of ~2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal — permanent bar on re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) by stipulation means both parties consented to end the litigation permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, Digital Doors cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Bank of America based on US9015301B2. The court’s role was to accept and acknowledge the stipulation — no merits ruling was made on validity or infringement.
Claims extinguished — no merits rulingDigital Doors loses future enforcement rights against Bank of America
For Digital Doors, a with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future suit against Bank of America on US9015301B2 for the accused conduct. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties — but this defendant is now permanently shielded from re-assertion. The own-costs arrangement suggests Digital Doors did not obtain a public damages award, though a confidential licensing payment cannot be ruled out from the public record.
Patent survives — BofA permanently protectedBank of America secures permanent immunity from these specific claims
Bank of America exits the litigation with a with-prejudice bar that prevents Digital Doors from re-asserting US9015301B2 on the same accused products or conduct. The bank deployed four attorneys across two law firms including Williams & Connolly LLP, signalling a well-resourced defence posture. The mutual cost-bearing outcome means BofA absorbed its own legal fees without a § 285 fee recovery — a common trade-off in negotiated exits.
Permanent immunity — own legal costs absorbedUS9015301B2 remains active — other financial institutions remain exposed
The stipulated dismissal resolves only this defendant’s exposure. US9015301B2, covering secure storage and content classification infrastructure, remains in force and could be asserted against other banks, fintech operators, or enterprise software providers. The ‘Member Case’ designation suggests Digital Doors may be running parallel or sequential campaigns. Financial institutions using similar information management architectures should treat this outcome as a signal to review FTO positions.
Patent still live — sector exposure remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Information security patent assertion entity — holder of US9015301B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank of America Corp. | Company | Bank of America Corp. — major U.S. financial institution and enterprise technology operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam D. Harber | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher John Mandernach | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | D. Shayon Ghosh | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Williams & Connolly LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Williams & Connolly LLP – Washington | Law Firm | Representing Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the language of the parties’ stipulation closely, accepting and acknowledging the dismissal rather than issuing an independent ruling. The with-prejudice designation under Rule 41(a)(1) is party-driven — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The explicit denial of all pending motions as moot confirms no substantive rulings survived the dismissal. The own-costs provision forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by agreement.
US9015301B2 — information infrastructure management with secure storage
US9015301B2 (application no. US11/746440) covers information infrastructure management tools incorporating data extraction, secure storage, content analysis, and classification capabilities. The patent addresses the technical architecture for managing, securing, and classifying information at an enterprise scale — a domain directly relevant to financial institutions’ compliance, records management, and data governance obligations. The application’s filing date and grant trajectory place it in the era of early enterprise content management systems.
Strategically, US9015301B2 occupies a broad technical space that overlaps with document management platforms, compliance archiving systems, and cloud-based data classification services deployed across banking, insurance, and fintech. The patent’s claims on secure storage and content classification are consistent with assertion targets that use enterprise information management at scale. Given the ‘Member Case’ structure of this litigation, this patent may be part of a wider monetisation campaign, making it a material watch item for any organisation operating comparable infrastructure.
Should your team run an FTO against US9015301B2?
Any financial institution, enterprise software vendor, or fintech operator deploying information infrastructure tools that incorporate data extraction, secure storage, content analysis, or automated classification workflows should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US9015301B2. The patent’s assertion against a major bank signals that the claim scope is being read broadly against commercial-scale deployments. If your organisation uses document management, compliance archiving, or data governance platforms, the risk is non-trivial.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9015301B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and surface related patents in the Digital Doors portfolio that could form part of a broader assertion campaign. Eureka’s litigation monitoring module also tracks new filings citing this patent across all U.S. district courts, giving your legal and R&D teams early warning of escalating assertion activity before a complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9015301B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: secure storage and content classification in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable infringement actions asserting information infrastructure and secure storage patents in the Eastern District of Texas against financial services defendants.
What this case signals for the financial services IP landscape
This dismissal pattern in E.D. Texas is consistent with monetisation strategies targeting enterprise technology in financial services.
E.D. Texas ‘Member Case’ filings suggest coordinated portfolio assertion
The ‘Member Case’ designation indicates this action is part of a coordinated docket, consistent with a plaintiff asserting the same patent across multiple defendants. Financial institutions and enterprise technology operators should monitor related dockets in E.D. Texas for parallel filings citing US9015301B2 or related patents in Digital Doors’ portfolio.
Pre-claim-construction settlement points to early commercial resolution pressure
At 318 days, this case likely resolved before a Markman hearing — a typical pressure point where defendants must invest heavily in claim construction briefing. The early exit and mutual cost-bearing suggests the economic calculus favoured settlement over continued defence spend, regardless of the underlying merits of the infringement allegations.
Digital v Bank — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on October 4, 2024, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued. The with-prejudice designation bars Digital Doors from re-asserting the same claims against Bank of America.
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Digital Doors’ right to sue Bank of America again on US9015301B2 for the same accused conduct. However, the patent itself remains valid and in force — Digital Doors retains the right to assert it against other defendants. The dismissal reflects only the resolution of this specific dispute between these two parties.
US9015301B2 covers information infrastructure management tools incorporating data extraction, secure storage, content analysis, and classification. Financial institutions like Bank of America operate large-scale document management, compliance archiving, and data governance systems that may fall within the claimed architecture. The patent’s broad technical scope makes it a credible assertion vehicle against enterprise-scale deployments in financial services.
A ‘Member Case’ designation in E.D. Texas typically indicates the action is consolidated or coordinated with a lead case involving the same patent and plaintiff. This is consistent with a patent assertion strategy where the same patent is asserted against multiple defendants in parallel or sequential actions. It suggests Digital Doors may have filed — or planned to file — similar suits against other financial institutions or technology companies using US9015301B2.
A mutual own-costs arrangement in a stipulated dismissal typically reflects a negotiated resolution where neither party sought a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case’. Agreeing to bear own costs avoids that threshold dispute and is standard in commercial settlements. It does not preclude the existence of a confidential financial resolution — such terms would not appear in the public court record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.